RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
#TimeToAct On Sri Lanka Print
Wednesday, 11 June 2014 15:14

Jagger writes: "I support the contention that sexual violence is not an inevitable part of conflict. I applaud the call for new attitudes, which remove the stigma, the great shame that comes with these crimes. I support Foreign Secretary Hague and Special Envoy Angelina Jolie's determination to 'shatter the culture of impunity for sexual violence.'"

Human rights advocate Bianca Jagger. (photo: Martin Pope)
Human rights advocate Bianca Jagger. (photo: Martin Pope)


#TimeToAct On Sri Lanka

By Bianca Jagger, Reader Supported News

11 June 14

 

he Global Summit to End Sexual Violence in Conflict begins today, June 10-13, 2014, on the banks of the Thames here in London. The Summit is organized by Foreign Secretary William Hague and Special Envoy of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Angelina Jolie. According to the UK government, it will be the biggest meeting ever held on this subject and the conference will launch an International Protocol to help strengthen prosecutions. Delegations from over 140 countries are here to participate, along with legal experts, academics, religious leaders and many others. There are many survivors present.

The objectives of the summit are admirable and they could have a profound impact in ending sexual violence in conflict. As Special Envoy Angelina Jolie said at the opening, this could be "a turning point, an opportunity to send a message, around the world."

I fully support the aims of the conference. I support the contention that sexual violence is not an inevitable part of conflict. I applaud the call for new attitudes, which remove the stigma, the great shame that comes with these crimes. I support Foreign Secretary Hague and Special Envoy Angelina Jolie's determination to "shatter the culture of impunity for sexual violence." The Foreign Secretary calls ending sexual violence in conflict "a moral issue for our generation." I couldn't agree more.

But regrettably, Foreign Secretary Hague has forgotten about the courageous survivors of sexual violence in Sri Lanka.

Sexual violence in Sri Lanka is not on the conference agenda. More than this, the Stabilization Unit Team of Experts, created by Mr Hague, has not been assigned to the country to investigate. The team is working on both ongoing (DR Congo, Syria) and historic (Libya, Bosnia, Rwanda) cases of sexual violence in conflict -- and has recently expanded its remit to cover more countries including Burma... Yet Sri Lanka, where rape has been used as a weapon of war for many years of brutal civil conflict, is not being examined.

Nor is the UK providing a safe haven for victims of torture and sexual violence in conflict. Refugees are being deported from the UK back to Sri Lanka to face further torture or even death.

I have campaigned for human rights, social justice and environmental protection for over 30 years. I have met many victims of sexual violence, from Bosnia to Guatemala. I was very shaken by the brutal accounts of sexual violence in Sri Lanka. Rape is systematic and widespread against both men and women. Horrific crimes are being committed with total impunity by police and armed forces.

The evidence reveals a chilling pattern -- not opportunistic individual soldiers but a sanctioned coordinated program with different wings of Security forces cooperating in secret camps for torture and sexual violence.

On Friday, June 6, I met with two Tamil survivors of torture and rape in Sri Lanka -- a man and a woman. I felt sickened after listening to their horrific testimonies of unlawful detention, torture, sexual crimes and repeated rape -- the young man was subjected to similar torture and rape as the woman. I have withheld their names and certain details in the accounts below, in order to protect them and their families from reprisals. They are in fear for their lives.

The young woman told me of being dragged from her home in front of her mother by five men in civilian dress, blindfolded and taken in a white van to a place where men and women were screaming and crying behind the walls. She was put in a room with no window, water, toilet, bucket or sink. Two men in cargo pants interrogated her. She was crying so much that she couldn't answer. They tore her dress off as she cried and shouted and slapped them. They burned her with cigarettes on the face and breasts. Then they both raped her. That night she lay on the cement floor, bleeding from the rapes. She was not given food or drink and she didn't sleep. She says she felt very ashamed, that perhaps it would have been better if they had killed her. Through the walls other male and female voices were screaming.

Over the next nine days she was raped repeatedly. She believes it was by many different men. Sometimes there were as many as four at once. She was burned on the face, breasts, thighs, arms, buttocks and back and beaten with a plastic pipe, repeatedly ducked in a barrel of water.

After the ninth day, men came every other day rape her, one at a time. During the time she was held prisoner she never saw a lawyer or a judge.

After 16 days, she was finally freed by a bribe from a family member, who arranged for her to board a flight to London. She was taken into custody on arrival when she could not produce a passport. She told me that the first time she met with the Home Office, she couldn't speak. She is not allowed to work in the UK. She reports to the Home Office once a month. She says she can't sleep. She's always anxious. She's still in pain from her injuries from the rapes and beatings. She feels that the UK is the only place that can protect her. If she is sent back, she says, they won't leave her alive this time. She hopes that what happened to her will not happen to anyone else.

The young man was crying and trembled as he spoke to me. He was frightened, emotionally fragile.

He was at home with his mother and sister when three large men, two in plain clothes and one in a green army uniform, seized him from the yard as his mother and sister screamed. They bundled him into an unmarked white van. He had no shoes. In the van, they beat him until he passed out.

He woke in a small cell with no windows. Over the next five months, he was subjected to torture, including having his genitals squeezed until he passed out. He was beaten, sprayed with a high pressure hose, threatened with cigarettes, urinated on, spat on, and blindfolded. He was fed but not much, and lost a lot of weight.

He was finally released and ordered to report to the police station every two weeks. He had injuries all over his body -- pain in his genitals, back, knees. He returned home but he says he didn't want to do anything, or go anywhere. He was very frightened all the time.

When he routinely reported to the police station again two months later, he was handcuffed and again bundled into a vehicle. He was taken to another place with concrete bunkers and metal sheds, taken into a concrete room and bound to a chair.

He was interrogated. He was kicked with boots, beaten, threatened with cigarettes. He remained in detention for eight months. Sometimes he saw other detainees in the yard but no one spoke. This time the interrogations were different.

He was often stripped and held down while one man squeezed his testicles. On one occasion, a man licked him up and down with his tongue.

He was raped more than three times, including with metal objects, by between three and five men at a time. "They were always wearing army uniform," he said. He remembers screaming and screaming.

During the time he was held prisoner, he never saw a lawyer or a judge.

His family also bribed his way out, and they kept the fact that he had a passport quiet. He was again ordered to report to the police station every two weeks but instead obtained a student visa and came to the UK, where he was detained at Gatwick for two months. He has applied for asylum. It has not been granted.

He was a student, and he says that he thinks if he could study again, it would be better, and that he could move on. He lives with his family, but he has not told them what happened to him. His deportation hearing is coming up at the end of the month. I will be accompanying him to the hearing.

I have met survivors of sexual violence from all over the world. I have never in my experience as a human rights campaigner encountered so much evidence of the rape of men as in Sri Lanka.

Last Friday was a beautiful sunny day in London but it seemed very dark in my living room where I sat with those two survivors. I felt sick, revolted as I listened to the atrocities they had endured. Their suffering was palpable. It was a trauma to recount their experiences, but both said it was a relief to speak of it. There is a stigma surrounding rape and the survivors feel great shame, as of course the perpetrators intended they should.

Cigarette burns and branding are used as a way of ensuring that everyone knows the victims have been raped. Frances Harrison, the author of Still Counting the Dead: Survivors of Sri Lanka's Hidden War, says most survivors never confide in husbands, mothers, sisters, family. These rapes inflict tortures of isolation and suffering years after they are over. She says it's common for the Sri Lankan government to take reprisals against family of those who have fled to the UK. Victims therefore fear to phone their families in Sri Lanka. They are very alone.

The cases I have cited above are not isolated or exceptions. Rape is being used as a weapon of war in Sri Lanka as we speak. The survivors, including the two I have met, are understandably horrified, at a loss to understand why their plight is not being addressed at the Global Summit to End Sexual Violence in Conflict.

I have appealed to William Hague and Angelina Jolie to include sexual violence and torture in Sri Lanka in the agenda to End Sexual Violence in Conflict, and broaden the remit of the Stabilization Unit Team of Experts. It is critical that they include Sri Lanka as one of the countries to which they are assigned. I urge them also to lend their voices to the plight of those survivors who are being sent from the UK back to Sri Lanka to face further torture or death.

Rape has long been used as a weapon of war. For a long time it was seen as inevitable. Talking to those two Sri Lankan survivors brought back horrific memories of the testimonies I heard from Bosnian and Croatian women during my fact finding mission to the former Yugoslavia. In 1993 the Helsinki Commission, U.S. Congress asked to me to document the use of mass rape as a weapon of war by Serb forces as part of their campaign of ethnic cleansing. I traveled through the former Yugoslavia with UNHCR, visited refugee camps and listened to hundreds of shocking testimonies of women who had been raped. Upon my return to the U.S., I testified before the Helsinki Commission. I recall the reluctance of the international community to believe that tens of thousands of women had been victims of rape -- and their reluctance to act. Today, thousands of those women are still waiting for justice in Bosnia.

I cannot fathom why the UK government is not denouncing the Sri Lankan government's atrocities. Why are they not demanding that the perpetrators be brought to justice? Why are they deporting survivors of torture and rape back to Sri Lanka, and endangering their lives?

In November 2013, Prime Minister David Cameron and Foreign Secretary William Hague attended the Commonwealth Summit in Sri Lanka, despite widespread international condemnation of the Sri Lankan government for their human rights abuses. Sri Lanka now holds the presidency of the Commonwealth. Why is the issue of sexual violence in Sri Lanka not included in the agenda for the summit when there is such a wealth of evidence?

In the April 2014, a UN report by UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon and Zainab Hawa Bangura, the Secretary General's Special Representative on Sexual Violence in Conflict, named Sri Lanka as one of the 21 countries where rape and other sexual violence have been committed during conflicts.

The March 2014 report, "An Unfinished War: Torture and Sexual Violence in Sri Lanka, 2009 - 2014," was produced by human rights lawyer and co-author of the UN Panel of Experts report on mass atrocities in Sri Lanka, Yasmin Sooka. The Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales and the International Truth and Justice Project, "Sri Lanka," is a collection of 40 sworn testimonies from witnesses who had been subject to detention in Sri Lanka, now in the UK. The statements are supported by medical and hospital records, and the report was conducted by nine independent, international lawyers. The report found that "the targeting ... was not random and that the patterns of the use of torture, rape and sexual violence makes it likely, we believe that the experiences described a small sample of those crimes likely to have been committed against the Tamil population in Sri Lanka." I urge you to read the report. It states, "[A]lmost half the witnesses interviewed for the report attempted to kill themselves after reaching safety outside Sri Lanka."

The only mention of Sri Lanka in the three-day agenda of the Summit is the participation of Yasmin Sooka, co-author of 'An Unfinished War,' in the panel "Investigating and Documenting sexual violence in conflict." There is no country specific focus on Sri Lanka -- Ms Sooka will speak generally about investigation. There is no mention of Sri Lanka in any of the documents about the official sessions, and no case studies on Sri Lanka.

Channel 4's The Killing Fields documents the last days of the civil war in 2009. A UN report leaked to the BBC at the time, investigating the UN's own conduct during the last months of the conflict states: "Events in Sri Lanka mark a grave failure of the UN."

The 2013 Human Rights Watch report, "We Will Teach You a Lesson" and other reports by the Minority Rights Group, recent interviews on ITV News and the BBC, and the 2014 documentary No Fire Zone, The Killing Fields of Sri Lanka, all suggest that sexual violence against the Tamil community continues to be rife. No Fire Zone also shows that the Tamil journalist Isaipriya was raped and executed while in custody -- the Sri Lankan government has always claimed she died in combat.

Even Foreign Secretary William Hague cited these allegations on November 13, 2013, and urged Sri Lanka to sign the Declaration of Commitment to End Sexual Violence in Conflict and launch an investigation.

Sri Lanka has refused to sign the Declaration despite the urging of Foreign Secretary Hague, and declined his invitation to the conference.

Sri Lanka is not living up to its responsibilities to launch an investigation into the atrocities committed during the civil war. UNHCR voted on March 27, 2014, in the face of fierce opposition from the Sri Lankan government, to launch an international investigation. High Commissioner Navi Pillay had urged the creation of an independent inquiry for years. The lack of progress, she says dryly, "[H]as been a question of political will."

It would have a significant impact if the Foreign Secretary broadened the remit of the Stabilization Unit Team of Experts to include Sri Lanka as one of the countries to which they were assigned.

Sri Lanka is an obvious candidate for inclusion and such a move would send a powerful signal to President Mahinda Rajapaksa and his government that rape is a war crime and that the perpetrators must be brought to justice.

The voluntary Declaration of Commitment to End Sexual Violence in Conflict is a precondition for investigation under current regulations of the Stabilisation Unit. They cannot investigate in Sri Lanka. But as the "An Unfinished War" report demonstrates, and as I have seen for myself, there are victims willing to be interviewed living here in the UK.

I fear that the UK Government's unwillingness to investigate this issue is linked to immigration, border policy and the UK Border Agency. The UK has been deporting victims of sexual violence and torture back to Sri Lanka. Last year the UK government admitted that 15 people had been tortured, escaped to the UK, were deported back to Sri Lanka, tortured again, and then escaped to the UK again. I have read the testimonies of some survivors of sexual violence who have undergone this process, and are once again awaiting deportation in the UK. This could well be the tip of the iceberg.

The Refugee Council's women's advocacy manager, Anna Musgrave told the Observer on the June 7 that it was hypocritical of the government to have the Foreign Office pledging to help to stop rape as a weapon of war while the Home Office was treating its victims so shoddily.

"This summit demonstrates," she said, "there is a dangerous lack of joined-up thinking when it comes to tackling sexual violence against women. On one hand, you've got real progress being made in conflict zones overseas, but when those same victims make it to UK shores it's a completely different story. Women often aren't believed, and instead of being protected they're further traumatised by the asylum system. It's critical that the government tackles this issue with the same gusto at home as it's doing abroad and protects the survivors of sexual violence."

I hope Foreign Secretary William Hague and UN Envoy Angelina Jolie will seize this historic opportunity. I have written them both personal letters urging them to include Sri Lanka in the agenda for the Summit, to shine a light on the plight of the victims of sexual crimes and torture in Sri Lanka, and asking them to meet with survivors.

Angelina Jolie and William Hague said in their joint article in the Sunday Times on the June 8, "It is in our power to remove rape as a weapon of war from the world's arsenal of cruelty. And it is in our hands to treat victims not as social outcasts, but as courageous survivors."

I admire their objectives -- this is a consummation devoutly to be wished. But all the victims of sexual violence in conflict deserve access to justice and our support -- we cannot pick and choose who we extend that justice to.

I am afraid that at the moment, the Sri Lankan survivors are still treated as "outcasts." They are being relegated to the edges of society. Their plight is being ignored by the support systems of the state -- by the Agenda for the Summit and, I am afraid to say, by the UK government. As Mr Hague said in his opening statement to the Summit: 'What would it say about Britain if we chose not to act -- now that we know the facts, how can we turn aside?'

I would like Mr Hague to answer his own question.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Mental Health vs. Gun Control: A Devil's Bargain Print
Wednesday, 11 June 2014 15:13

Chernus writes: "The tragic death of seven young people in Isla Vista, CA, has sparked renewed calls for gun control, as everyone expected. Less expected: Republicans in the House are leading a push for a well-funded federal program to give a broad range of new services to Americans with serious mental illness."

(photo: flickr / cc / Deepwarren)
(photo: flickr / cc / Deepwarren)


Mental Health vs. Gun Control: A Devil's Bargain

By Ira Chernus, Common Dreams

11 June 14

 

he tragic death of seven young people in Isla Vista, CA, has sparked renewed calls for gun control, as everyone expected. Less expected: Republicans in the House are leading a push for a well-funded federal program to give a broad range of new services to Americans with serious mental illness.

Before we get to the details, let's review some basic facts: Only 5% or less of violent acts are committed by people with serious mental illness. Mental illness alone causes virtually no increase in the likelihood that any person will do violence. People with no mental disorder who abuse alcohol or other drugs are far more likely than the mentally ill to commit violence.

These facts lead a lot of people to the rather logical conclusion that the real problem raised by mass killings lies not in mental illness but in the all-too-easy availability of guns.

Of course Republicans will have nothing to do with that line of thinking. Again, no surprise. The surprise is the new Republican interest in seriously addressing the nation's shamefully inadequate treatment of the mentally ill.

It's led by GOP Rep. Tim Murphy, a clinical psychologist from Pennsylvania. He's introduced a rather sweeping bill, The Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act (H.R. 3717). While some of its provisions are no doubt debatable, overall it would provide an unprecedented array of services to people struggling with mental illness and their families. Some of the reforms would come from changes in existing federal law and interpretations of law.

But some would require significant increases in federal spending. The bill even calls for a whole new level of bureaucracy: an Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use Disorders within the Department of Health and Human Services.

So far the bill has 86 co-sponsors — and 50 of them are Republicans!

Why the sudden GOP enthusiasm to see the feds take care of Americans who have suffered so much neglect for so long? A spokesman for a prominent House Republican, Duncan Hunter, acknowledged what everyone knows: GOP members "want to avoid any situation where mental health is primarily hitched to the gun debate."

Murphy himself put it more delicately: "If guns caused mental illness, then we would treat that; mental illness needs to be treated, and it is not." But the point is clear enough.

So what's a self-respecting liberal to do? Murphy's bill is the stuff that liberal dreams have been made of for years. Anyone who has directly seen the agony mental illness can cause will want to stand up and cheer for the Republican psychologist and his 50 colleagues. And the bill can't pass the House without plenty of Democratic support.

Meanwhile, with the House surely under GOP control through 2016, and perhaps the Senate too, chances for any kind of gun control legislation are as nonexistent as the unicorn.

Still, supporting Murphy's bill is a symbolic endorsement of the politics behind it: pandering to the totally false but widespread belief that mental illness, not guns, is the primary cause of violence in the United States. It's comes pretty to close to saying that gun control no longer really matters, at least not for the time being.

Should liberals buy this devil's bargain?

That question brought to my mind the old Joni Mitchell line: "We're caught in the devil's bargain / And we've got to get ourselves back to the garden."

It's a pithy summary of the political dilemma Americans have struggled with throughout our nation's history, the one that this mental health bill raises yet again: Are we pragmatists who take only what we can get, believing that politics is the art of the possible? Or are we idealists, standing up for absolute truth and justice every time as the genuine American way?

Idealists since colonial times have claimed that the Old World was marred by pragmatism — the willingness to compromise with the devil and soil one's soul in the dirtiness of political deals. Here in the garden of the New World, on the other hand, life could be Edenic. Every kind of perfection was possible. We could have it all — or so the story was told.

Thomas Morton's Maremount, Brook Farm, and the communes of the '60s hippies are only the most famous of the many efforts to put that vision into practice.

At the same time, there has been an equally powerful tradition of priding ourselves on our distinctive pragmatism, our Yankee ingenuity, our ability to get the job done no matter what it takes — even compromise on basic principles. The Constitution, putting into practice Madison's vision of checks and balances, stands as the greatest monument to this side of America's national narrative. The story of the Constitutional Convention has been told over and over to prove that our spirit of compromise works — even if it produced something as shameful as the 3/5 compromise (slaves counting as 3/5 of a person).

Similarly, Franklin Roosevelt used a (no doubt invented) "Bulgarian proverb" to justify alliance with the Soviets in World War II: "You are permitted to hold hands with the devil until you get across the bridge." That line has often been quoted, almost always with approval -- except perhaps by ardent, principled anti-communists. Yet just a few years after the war's end they were willing, even eager, to embrace all the evil means of the "red menace" to defeat it, and they never seemed ashamed of saying so.

Which is a good reminder that both liberals and conservatives have been found in abundance among both the pragmatists and the idealists. The current battles between the tea party and the more "moderate" Republicans as well as between the Clinton and Warren wings of the Democratic Party are both as American as apple pie.

The lesson of history is that pragmatism and idealism are permanent features of all our major political parties. Every one has been riven by internal strife between its absolutists and its compromisers. Often enough the same person has been an absolutist on some issues and a compromiser on others.

So if we ask whether Democrats will support Rep. Murphy's anti-gun-control mental health bill, the obvious answer is that some will and some won’t.

The question that remains is how each side among the liberals will deal with the other. Will the supporters of the Murphy bill respect the purist gun control advocates and their righteous motives for criticizing the bill, recognizing that the purists want both mental health reform and gun control, not a choice between the two? Will the purists respect the righteous motives of pragmatists who support the bill, recognizing that the pragmatists remain committed to gun control whenever it becomes politically possible?

The lesson of history is that the answer to both questions is "Not very likely."

Idealists have typically been absolutists, stoutly resisting every suggestion of compromise. And their absolutism has given America some of its finest moments — like Dr. Martin Luther King's refusal to tolerate the words "wait" and "gradualism" in the drive for genuine equality, now! The civil rights movement of the 1960s might have won no victories at all if the compromisers had prevailed.

Pragmatists have typically criticized the purists, often harshly, for letting the best become the enemy of the good and thus condemning the nation to end up stuck with the bad. Their cautious approach, too, has led to some fine results.

When FDR first entered the White House, for example, many of his advisors urged a utopian program of transforming the U.S. into what historian William Leuchtenberg called a “Heavenly City: the greenbelt town, clean, green, and white" prevailing everywhere. FDR opted for more limited, realistic goals. As a result we still have Social Security and unemployment checks flowing across the land to people in need.

Even if Tim Murphy's mental health bill becomes law, it's not likely to be remembered by history on the same level as the New Deal and the civil rights movement — though for the millions affected by mental illness and forced to endure our terribly inadequate mental health system, the suffering is often on a par with the worst effects of poverty and racism.

While the bill is being debated, however, it offers liberals of both the pragmatic and idealist persuasion a chance to show each other some respect and acknowledge that good motives can be at work on both sides.

Our national mythology has always insisted that such mutual respect is possible because (as illogical as it sounds) Americans are both exceptional pragmatists and equally exceptional idealists — that we have a unique ability to walk on both sides of the fence simultaneously.

Our national mythology has also enshrined the claim that America created the best possible political system, where honest disagreement between well-meaning factions need not lead to outright hostility.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS | Pop Goes the Weasel (Eric Cantor) Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=11104"><span class="small">Charles Pierce, Esquire</span></a>   
Wednesday, 11 June 2014 13:15

Pierce writes: "Remember how Howard Dean put together a 50-state strategy and everybody laughed at him, and then when the wave election hit in 2006, all the credit went to Rahm Emanuel because so many of our elite pundits admire unapologetic dickheads most of all? Anyway, I was thinking of that last night when I realized that Eric Cantor had lost his primary to a religio-Randian economics prof."

Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia (photo: Salon)
Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia (photo: Salon)


Pop Goes the Weasel (Eric Cantor)

By Charles Pierce, Esquire

11 June 14

 

few more things to mark the electorate's decision that Eric Cantor immediately should begin his lucrative career as a lobbyis...er...spend more time with his family.

Point The First: I think Chris Cillizza may stroke out today.

We've written before about how difficult it will be for Boehner to hold on to his speakership -- assuming Republicans keep the majority this fall. But now the heir apparent has been dragged under by a conservative uprising. The third man in command -- House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (Calif.) -- is not exactly a tea party darling or, stylistically speaking, the sort of hard-liner that the most conservative wing in the House likes. Add it all up and you are looking at what could be an absolutely bananas race to lead the House Republican majority come 2015.

A seismic banana race!

Contra Steve M, the primary bona fides for Republican members of the House of Representatives is how thoroughly you can refuse to do the job of governing, especially in the area of immigration, but also as regards the critical elements of the national economy. That is going to be the ground on which the seismic banana race is going to be run. The winners will be the ones who can most convincingly demonstrate that they have no intention of doing their jobs as long as the Kenyan Usurper resides in the White House.

Point The Second: I still miss Howard Dean.

Remember how Howard Dean put together a 50-state strategy and everybody laughed at him, and then when the wave election hit in 2006, all the credit went to Rahm Emanuel because so many of our elite pundits admire unapologetic dickheads most of all? Anyway, I was thinking of that last night when I realized that Eric Cantor had lost his primary to a religio-Randian economics prof and the Democratic alternative was a place-holder named Jack Trammell, who also works at Randolph-Macon College -- Yellow Jackets represent! Whut-whut! -- who this morning finds himself in a more winnable race than existed at six o'clock last night. Why, I thought, hasn't Trammell, or someone like him -- or a couple of someones like him -- been out there for six months beating more hell out of Cantor than Dave Brat was? Why did his website look like it was designed by Jukt Micronics? The Republicans never shied away from going after Tom Daschle, or Tom Foley before him. Why were national Democrats caught flat-footed by last night's results? It's their job not to be surprised by this kind of thing. The primary benefit of Dean's approach was that it presumed that progressive ideas could sell anywhere, and that it was part of the mandate of a national party not to concede any race anywhere.

Point The Third: Alas, I do so still despair of the rebranding.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Interests, Ideology and the Climate Denial Machine Print
Wednesday, 11 June 2014 09:19

Mann writes: "I take issue with Krugman's argument that the massive funding of climate change denial by monied interests like the Koch Brothers doesn't play an equal role."

(illustration: Greenpeace)
(illustration: Greenpeace)


Interests, Ideology and the Climate Denial Machine

By Michael Mann, EcoWatch

11 June 14

 

aul Krugman has an interesting op-ed in Sunday’s New York Times entitled “Interests, Ideology & Climate.” In this commentary, Krugman argues that the current campaign to deny climate change is steeped more in political ideology than in industry-funded opposition.

I’m a big fan of Krugman’s work, and he makes a number of very good points in this latest commentary. I agree with him that the current campaign to deny the reality and threat of climate change does indeed feed off a very large, ideologically-driven partisan divide that is grounded in anti-regulatory beliefs and libertarian principles.

But I take issue with Krugman’s argument that the massive funding of climate change denial by monied interests like the Koch Brothers doesn’t play an equal role. The fallacy in Krugman’s thesis, in my view, is that the ideological divide that exists with regard to climate change is somehow independent of the massively-funded disinformation campaign. It isn’t.

The Kochs, Scaifes and others have used their billions to construct a vast “Potemkin Village” (in the words of science historian Naomi Oreskes) of denialism, by funding groups like Americans for Prosperity, the Heartland Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and a whole cadre of other front groups, organizations and hired guns implicated in the campaign to discredit climate science and climate scientists. I should know since, as I describe in my book The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars, I found myself at the center of that campaign more than a decade ago because of my scientific work establishing the unprecedented nature of recent global warming.

This network of front groups, organizations and paid advocates is sometimes referred to as the “Climate Denial Machine” or just “CDM” (though, to be precise, they aren’t denying “climate” per se, but rather, the overwhelming scientific consensus that the climate is changing, and that we’re the cause).

The CDM has, in my view, played a far more critical role than Krugman’s piece might seem to imply. It is this well-organized and well-funded apparatus that supports and nurtures the larger conservative echo chamber of climate change denialism. A favored mode of attack by the CDM involves firing up the conservative “base” through dog whistles and red meat-loaded attacks on climate scientists via conservative media outlets. These attacks frequently seek to create the notion that climate scientists are part of an evil cabal seeking to take away your freedom in support of creating a socialist world government. The “one world government” conspiracy theory is a staple of the Koch and Scaife-funded attack machine.

The partisan divide on climate change didn’t arise in a vacuum. Despite the substantial differences in political ideology between affiliates of the two major parties that existed during the Clinton years, there was relatively little difference in their level of acceptance of the science of climate change. But the schism has increased steadily over time ever since as the funding and extent of the CDM disinformation campaign has ramped up.

The fact that there is such strong ideological opposition now among self-identified conservatives to acting on climate change is a direct result of this massively funded and well-organized disinformation campaign. So, yes, the current opposition on the right to acting on climate change is largely ideologically-driven. But that ideological divide was created and continues to be nurtured by a very deliberate disinformation campaign, funded by the Koch Brothers and other conservative interests who are arguably driven as much by financial self-interest (think Koch & Keystone) as by ideology. To argue otherwise is, with all due respect, to let these bad faith actors off the hook.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
The Bowtied Monster (George Will) Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=11104"><span class="small">Charles Pierce, Esquire</span></a>   
Tuesday, 10 June 2014 15:05

Pierce writes: "Today, at Hiatt's House Of Hacks, George Will is someone who has nothing better to do than mock the current movement on America's campuses to try and cope with the problems of rape and sexual assault, and trolling its victims while jacking it into his dogeared copy of Bartlett's."

Washington Post columnist George Will. (photo: ABC News)
Washington Post columnist George Will. (photo: ABC News)


The Bowtied Monster (George Will)

By Charles Pierce, Esquire

10 June 14

 

n 1977, while awarding him that year's prize in distinguished commentary, the Pulitzer committee said about George F. Will that he was "at home with a wide variety of topics, from international relations, campaigns, and urban problems to the history of machine guns and the vagaries of the press." This was before Will was recognized as the thoroughgoing disgrace to the craft of journalism that he is, before we knew that he was a working advisor to the Reagan campaign in 1980 while masquerading as an independent observer in his column and for ABC. It was before he proved himself to be a big old 'ho for the crooked Conrad Black. It was before he proved himself to be a smug, petulant dilettante who is willing to flirt with racism -- Go back and study his coverage of the Jesse Jackson campaign in 1988 -- and who is willing to throw himself whole hog into climate change denialism, and, now, today, at Hiatt's House Of Hacks, George Will is someone who has nothing better to do than mock the current movement on America's campuses to try and cope with the problems of rape and sexual assault, and trolling its victims while jacking it into his dogeared copy of Bartlett's. For laughs.

Colleges and universities are being educated by Washington and are finding the experience excruciating. They are learning that when they say campus victimizations are ubiquitous ("micro-aggressions," often not discernible to the untutored eye, are everywhere), and that when they make victimhood a coveted status that confers privileges, victims proliferate. And academia's progressivism has rendered it intellectually defenseless now that progressivism's achievement, the regulatory state, has decided it is academia's turn to be broken to government's saddle.

Hear that, college women? There's a "coveted status that confers privileges" to crying rape. (Hard to believe so many women choose not to embrace this important career move by reporting their assaults.) To paraphrase what the late Molly Ivins once said to Camille Paglia on a similar topic -- I've got some Texas football frat boys I'd like George to meet. I don't even want to get into why Will chose that breaking-academia-to-the-saddle metaphor, although he does look like the middle-school librarian whose tastes run to the sting of the whip. However, I would like to compliment him on his use of the word "progressivism" as a catch-all for anyone he doesn't like. He has set up a lovely little corner of Glennbeckistan for himself. This guy was once reckoned to be an American intellect. Now, he's writing like a sociopath, except about baseball, on which he writes like a foof. Not much soulcraft to trolling rape victims, George. Not much at all.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 2821 2822 2823 2824 2825 2826 2827 2828 2829 2830 Next > End >>

Page 2829 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN